metta8 said^he has a 6 year term and I think that he was reelected in 2012. I'm afraid that we may be stuck with him for a while still.

Perhaps, but if his credibility and political clout are diminished, that will be good. If Rogers really has the evidence on him, Barrasso becomes a lame duck, and able to influence very little, either in Wyoming or in the US Senate.

He'll likely be replaced by another Republican, at the end of his term or perhaps earlier, so whatever happens the Senate representation from Wyoming will follow the national Republican Party line. But the strident homophobic voice of Barrasso will be silenced.

In fact, keeping him in his Senate seat will likely be beneficial to LGBT, since there'll be one less homophobic Republican voice in Congress. He'll be a continuing embarrassment to Republicans, with a suspicion that other homophobes in their ranks are also closeted gays. He'll weaken all of them. HOORAY!!!

metta8 said^he has a 6 year term and I think that he was reelected in 2012. I'm afraid that we may be stuck with him for a while still.

Perhaps, but if his credibility and political clout are diminished, that will be good. If Rogers really has the evidence on him, Barrasso becomes a lame duck, and able to influence very little, either in Wyoming or in the US Senate.

He'll likely be replaced by another Republican, at the end of his term or perhaps earlier, so whatever happens the Senate representation from Wyoming will follow the national Republican Party line. But the strident homophobic voice of Barrasso will be silenced.

In fact, keeping him in his Senate seat will likely be beneficial to LGBT, since there'll be one less homophobic Republican voice in Congress. He'll be a continuing embarrassment to Republicans, with a suspicion that other homophobes in their ranks are also closeted gays. He'll weaken all of them. HOORAY!!!

His VOICE may be weakened, but he can still VOTE on issues that may come to the Senate.

metta8 said^he has a 6 year term and I think that he was reelected in 2012. I'm afraid that we may be stuck with him for a while still.

Perhaps, but if his credibility and political clout are diminished, that will be good. If Rogers really has the evidence on him, Barrasso becomes a lame duck, and able to influence very little, either in Wyoming or in the US Senate.

He'll likely be replaced by another Republican, at the end of his term or perhaps earlier, so whatever happens the Senate representation from Wyoming will follow the national Republican Party line. But the strident homophobic voice of Barrasso will be silenced.

In fact, keeping him in his Senate seat will likely be beneficial to LGBT, since there'll be one less homophobic Republican voice in Congress. He'll be a continuing embarrassment to Republicans, with a suspicion that other homophobes in their ranks are also closeted gays. He'll weaken all of them. HOORAY!!!

His VOICE may be weakened, but he can still VOTE on issues that may come to the Senate.

I'm aware of that. But as I noted, so will his Republican successor. Plus that successor will regain the clout that Barrasso will have lost.

Better to have an emasculated Republican voting in the US Senate, than a fully empowered one. The longer Barrasso remains in the Senate, if these Rogers claims are true, the weaker Republicans become, especially on their anti-gay crusade.

"On August 11, 2007, during Cheyenne's annual Race for the Cure, Barrasso and Bobbi Brown, herself a breast cancer survivor and at the time, the state director for Barrasso's state Senate offices, announced that they would marry. Once the two were engaged, Brown resigned her position in Barrasso's state Senate offices.[20] They were married on January 1, 2008, with their children in attendance in Thermopolis.[21]

Brown has a 16-year-old daughter, named Hadley, from a previous marriage. Barrasso has two children, Peter and Emma, from his previous marriage to Linda Nix"

How does Rogers function? Does he first float the idea in public to see if something surfaces or does he have evidence (I would presume), then floats a balloon and sees if the outed comes clean before furnishing evidence?

How does Rogers function? Does he first float the idea in public to see if something surfaces or does he have evidence (I would presume), then floats a balloon and sees if the outed comes clean before furnishing evidence?

I would say it's likely he doesn't have any real evidence, and that he just floated the idea in the hopes that radical lefties (like the person who started this topic) will just repeat it.

How does Rogers function? Does he first float the idea in public to see if something surfaces or does he have evidence (I would presume), then floats a balloon and sees if the outed comes clean before furnishing evidence?

I would say it's likely he doesn't have any real evidence, and that he just floated the idea in the hopes that radical lefties (like the person who started this topic) will just repeat it.

Great way to destroy a person's life.

Hi Southbeach. This is not the first time you've been a user towards me. I told you the first time that I don't appreciate that and I haven't learned to like it since.

Ask yourself which the more admirable character: revealing possibly substantiated hypocrisy (time will tell us) of someone with a known history of harming us, or using someone's innocent post to try and harm a third party?

What made you think that wouldn't backfire, insert rhetorical question mark here---->?

Besides that you would counterfeit yourself as responding to my question, all the while using my inquiry to wrongly berate a gentleman who did nothing to you, your suggestion that someone known (correctly or not) as gay destroys that person's life doesn't speak to a very high opinion of being gay.

What if someone was denouncing rich people, making discriminatory laws against them, and then it was uncovered--possibly a balloon was floated revealing--that person was rich, would that destroy that person's life too?

We do not appreciate your using Gay in the derogatory. This is a gay forum, after all, have some decorum.

The only thing destroying that person's life is that person's own decisions and actions to cause us pain. Preventing him from that is not destroying; it is a chance for that person to rebuild.